Manipur, one of the federating units of the Indian Union is today caught in the ethnic quagmire with three dominant elite groups indulging in a systematic and articulated campaign of ethnic assertion and consolidation in the process of expanding their respective spheres of influence. And the sequel is the emergence of conflict situation in Manipur where the issues of ethnicity and territoriality have been woven so inextricably that the territorial integrity of the State is being challenged as never before. But, it is an obvious fact that any alteration in the territorial status quo and of the State of Manipur would seriously undermine the prospect of its future existence as an independent political entity. Besides, the nature inherent in this issue has the potentiality of exacerbating a vertical polarization of the geo-ethnic politics in the whole North Eastern Region.

Mapping the ethnic Conflict: An alternative paradigm (?)

Ethnic conflict arose in the North-East as a result of the super-imposition of the Indian Parliamentary Democracy. The consolidation of the Indian rule in the North East through bureaucratization produced a new middle class. Then, on the social basis of this class emerged certain influential sub-groups or the elites representing the interest of the former. The elites of every ethnic group consists of two types i.e. the dominant elite and the aspirant elite.

The dominant elite of every ethnic group strove to create, consolidate and expand their respective Exclusive Spheres of Influence (ESI) as a consequence of which a conflict situation emerged in this region. Here, the term exclusive sphere of influence refers to the exclusive areas of jurisdiction where a specific elite group has the monopoly to exercise its influence over others effectively. The conflict situation got worsen due to the uneven formation of the middle class elite and subsequent development of a competitive solidarity among them coupled with the defective operationalization of the Indian Federal System.

The existing Constitutional framework cannot fully accommodate the plurality of interests generated from the diversities of the ethnic groups. Besides, the interventionist role of the State manifesting in the centralization of the Indian Federal structure seriously aggravated the Centre-periphery relations. Also, the various adhocist policies introduced by the Centre to contain the ethnic movement unfolded fresh tension areas between the Centre and the periphery. In fact, ethnic movements demanding regional autonomy in the North-East and which often culminated in ethnic clashes are highly constitutionalized in the sense that such ethnic movements derived moral inspiration and legal sanction from the Constitution itself.

The official responses of the metropolitan Indian State to the ongoing ethnic processes in the peripheral North-East critically accentuated the conflict situation. Certain observations can be derived from past experiences. Firstly, the Centre adopted a piecemeal solution towards the ethnic issue on the basis of adhocism. Secondly, the Centre resorted to the mode of territorial solution without having a clear vision of geo-ethnic dimension of the conflict dynamics. Thirdly, the Centre had laid a bad precedent by introducing a pattern of States re-organization on the basis of ethnicity. As such, in the absence of a consistent policy to address the core issue, the Centre resorted to political opportunism and later diverted towards adventurism thus escalating the conflict situation further.

Here, it is to be noted that ethnic conflict can be categorized into two types, viz; (a) inter-ethnic group conflict and, (b) intra-ethnic group conflict. The former is a conflict between the dominant elites of two or more different ethnic groups while the latter is a conflict between the dominant elite and the aspirant elite within the same ethnic group. Inter-ethnic group conflict finds expression in the forms of ethnic cleansing and ethnic clashes, whereas, intra-ethnic group conflict is characterized by emergence of various armed-groups leading to factional clashes and factionalism.

The North-East witnesses the process of ethnicization with the middle class as the moving force behind it. But, inspite of the emergence of middle class elites in all the ethnic groups, conflict remains latent due to the absence of an organized form of contest. But, when the conflict is reinforced by well-articulated cultural elements and supported by the economic structure of the society, organized armed-groups emerged on ethnic lines pursuing their respective ethnic aspiration as articulated by the newly emerging elite groups.

Thereafter, ethnic conflict became more intensified as the contest between the competing elites of concerned ethnic groups turned out in the form of direct military confrontation. Such direct ethnic clashes consolidated the identity and solidarity of the contending ethnic groups. In such a situation, contesting claims over the same territory constituted the crux of the conflict. Besides, the imposition of identity by the dominant ethnic group over the weaker ones became regular pattern of events while at the same time, the dominant elite groups endeavor to create a sense of common group identity within its own ethnic group. In this sense, insurgency can be conceptualized as an institutional mechanism to resolve the conflict between the ethnic groups. It is an instrument of conflict resolution.

The dominant elite groups in order to legitimize their ethnic mobilizations have employed selective ideologies like history, language, religion, culture, ethnicity, identity, human rights and international laws. However, ethnic nationalism based on the doctrine of right to self-determination is the most dominant ideology being successfully articulated by the dominant elites. In fact, ideologies are inevitably essential for mobilizing the masses and for gaining recognition or consent from the people. It also helps to elicit international support by projecting the movement as legally justified and politically correct.

Hence, ethnicity or ethnic consciousness turns out to be only an ideological tool invented by the elites for achieving their stated socio-cultural and politico-economic objectives and insurgent organization a mere institutional device for the same ends. However, it will be academically worthwhile to note that emergence of insurgency with a specific ideology has institutionalized the pattern of ethnic conflict in the North-East India. This is the origin of identity politics.

Ethnic insurgency aimed at achieving certain goals ranging from autonomy to sovereignty. Accordingly, the existing ethnic movements got expression in the forms of autonomy movements and the secessionist movements. The latter is the more extreme manifestation of ethnic conflict and ethnic mobilization.

For securing conflict resolution, “cease-fire” and “Peace-talks” are generally resorted to as the most conventional methods. A lot of Confidence Building Measures (CBMs) are also undertaken by both the contesting parties. Diplomatic parleys would eventually culminate in signing of peace accords marking the end of conflict. Technically the disarming and disbanding of the armed organizations indicates the ultimate resolution of conflict. In such cases, the patterns of conflict resolution between the Central Government and the insurgent groups can be briefly stated as under - a) Formation of Autonomous District Councils and Territorial Councils. b) Formation of New States and Union Territories.

In the case of ethnic conflict, “cease-fire” is declared by the insurgent groups and civil society organizations. Here too, conclusions of peace agreements by the apex social organizations representing the warring ethnic groups take place after a protracted civil strife. So far, no viable method of conflict resolution between the ethnic groups have been contrived and put into practice except resorting to “preventive diplomacy.”

As such, efforts are confined to conflict management in so far as the ethnic conflict is concerned. However, conflict resolution, both vertically and horizontally is possible under specific condition, if

a) the middle class solidarity through integration of elites based on the homogenization of interests can be achieved within each of the ethnic groups.

b) certain institutional arrangements are made within the Constitutional framework for securing permissible “Exclusive Sp- here of Influence” (ESI) to the dominant elite groups.

But, the question as to whether the conflict resolution would take place within or outside the constitutional framework depends upon the faith, which the dominant elite groups reposed on the Constitution of India. If the dominant elite groups believe that the Constitution can effectively guarantee their exclusive spheres of influence, conflict resolution will naturally take place within the Constitutional framework. Otherwise, they would seek to resolve the conflict outside the Constitution of India.

Contested narrations: The ethnic triangle

Naga Irredentism: The Origin: The hegemony of the Assamese middle-class created tribal resistance, which in due course of time assumed the form of ethnic mobilization. The tribal elites unable to check the expanding influence of the Assamese elites due to the superiority of the latter in terms of power and position forged a counter-strategy by creating a heterogeneous ethnic solidarity under newly invented nomenclatures such as the “Nagas” and the “Mizos”. The leading tribal elites sought their justification in the ethnic primordialism tracing their roots in the ‘immemorial past’.

The emergence of Naga ethnic movement that took place in the Naga Hills rapidly spread the ripples in the neighboring areas particularly Manipur. It was a historical coincidence that the tribal elites of the Manipur Hills were unable to compete with the then dominant elites of the Meiteis as was demonstrated in the ‘Merger Episode’. The Naga National League (NNL) under the leadership of A. Daiho had earlier resisted the merger of Manipur into the dominion of India but the movement was suppress-ed with the use of coercive state force. Hence, the tribal elites chose to establish their ‘exclusive sphere of influence’ where they could exercise to promote their interests without any interference from the more powerful Meitei elite groups by uniting the scattering tribal elites which culminated in the formation of the Manipur Naga Council (MNC) in 1960. Naturally, because of convergence of interests, the MNC joined the Naga ethnic movement, which was spearheaded by the NNC-FGN of AZ Phizo.

As stated earlier, the tribal elites had strongly opposed the merger of Manipur with India. However, the Meitei elite groups being more powerful had opted for integration thus imposing their will upon the Hill elites. In this sense, the hegemonistic and non-accommodative policy of the Meitei middle-class elites was mainly responsible for the rise of a conflict situation in Manipur on ethnic lines. Now, in order to gain legitimacy and support, certain ideologies like culture, religion and ethnicity are invoked. The competing tribal elite groups after having been trained by the British orchestrated a systematic ethnic engineering as expressed in the exclusivist ethnic philosophy of ‘Nagaism’. In the process, historical grudges about the maltreatment meted out to the tribals by the Meitei Kings were propagated to arouse enmity against the valley people. Therefore, the issue of integration of Naga-inhabited areas of Manipur with Nagaland is a result of development of ‘competitive solidarity’ among the Naga elites due to hegemonistic attitude of the Meitei middle-class elites. Thus, it can be implied that the process of ‘Nagaisation’ is the reaction of the smaller tribal elite groups to create and consolidate their exclusive spheres of influence vis-à-vis the expanding domination of the Assamese and the Meitei middle-class elites.

The Naga Narratives: Imagining a unified Greater Lim:

The dominant elites of the so called ‘Nagas’ have invented and imagined various narratives to justify their ethno-nationalist movement which may be summed up in a single phrase i.e., “Uniqueness of the Naga History and Situation.” The main narratives of the Naga ethnic discourse are briefly stated as under-

a) The Nagas were an independent nation having a country of their own.

b) The Nagas have a common racial origin with distinct tradition, culture, custom, religion, language, belief, norms and institutions.

c) Nobody had ever been able to conquer the Nagas at any point of History except the British after fierce resistance.

d) Even in the colonial period, the Nagas were ungoverned and unadministered and they were placed under the Excluded Areas as per the Government of India Act 1935.

e) With the lapse of British paramountcy, the Nagas regained their independence on 14th August 1947, which was celebrated by all the Nagas.

f) But the Nagas were arbitrarily divided into different political units with artificial boundaries by the invading India and Burma.

g) The Nagas had boycotted the Indian independence, formation of District Council, the General Election of 1952 etc. and successfully conducted the Plebiscite in 1951.

h) The Nagas have never signed any treaty of accession with India and hence the question of secession from India does not arise at all.

i) The Nagas are only defending their independent country against the naked invasion by Indian and Burmese occupational forces and as such, it is a case of National Resistance Movement.

j) The international status of Nagaland as an independent nation-State is implied in the Indo-Naga ceasefire agreement, which is a deal between two independent political entities.

Apart from these, the Nagas of Manipur have been indulging in a systematic and articulated ideological campaign against the Meiteis and the Kukis in order to legitimize their movement for integration with Nagaland State.

a) That the Meiteis and the Nagas are of different origins and therefore they should have different destinies. The Meiteis and the Nagas are “Two Different Peoples.”

b) That the Naga villages were like Greek City-States independent and sovereign and that the Meitei Maharajas had never ruled over them except making some temporary incursions leaving soon after the military expedition.

c) That neither in history were the Nagas given land by the Meiteis nor by their Maharajas. The Nagas were the first settlers in the land where they are today.

d) That the hill areas were under the direct rule of the British and that the list of Durbar members (Local) from 1907-47 were all Meiteis and no Nagas was ever a member of the Durbar.

e) That Manipur means only the valley, which covers approximately 700 square miles or even less, and the term Manipuris are used only with regard to the valley people.

t) That the four hills districts of Manipur namely Ukhrul, Senapati, Tamenglong and Chandel are the Nagas dominated areas.

g) That the Nagas of Manipur have been exploited by the Meiteis socially, economically, politically, administratively and educationally through legal instruments.

h) That the Meiteis instigated the Naga-Kuki ethnic clashes.

i) That the Kukis are nomadic tribes, foreigners, intruders etc. and as such they do not have any right to settle in the land of the Nagas.

The dominant Naga elites are propagating such ideas in their effort to carve out their exclusive spheres of influence through the instrumentation of armed organizations and civil societies. The intensity of their movement reached its zenith when the United Naga Council (UNC) serve quit notice to the Kuki villagers resulting in the bloody Naga-Kuki ethnic clash of 1992-94. Besides, the Senapati Declaration, a draft resolution of the Naga People’s Convention held in June 2001 demonstrated a firm determination of the Naga elites for any communal show down with the Meiteis.

Kuki ethnic resurgence: The background

There was a movement for the integration of the Kuki inhabited areas of Manipur into the Lushai Hills to form Greater Mizoram. It may be recalled that a violent secessionist movement for a sovereign Mizoram was launched by Laldenga as a reaction to the expansion of Assamese middle-class which culminated in the passing of the controversial Language Bill in 1960. The imposition of the Assamese language upon the hill tribes generated stiff resistance from the tribal elites who were already prepared to exercise their influence in their respective domain. The tribal resistance to the hegemonistic design of the Assamese elites found manifestation in the ethnic movements of the Naga Hills and the Lushai Hills demanding sovereign independent states which ultimately resulted in the creation of Nagaland and Mizoram.

The Mizo armed insurrection led by Laldenga finally came to an end after the signing of the Mizo Accord leading to the formation of Mizoram as a full-fledged State in 1987 within the Indian Union. However, the Kukis of Assam, Tripura, Manipur and Burma were left out from the purview of the political settlement for various reasons. One apparent factor was the clash of interests between the Mizo elites and the Kuki elites. Initially, Laldenga tried to enlist the support of the Kukis inhabiting the neighboring areas on the card of Independent Greater Mizoram. But, later it turned out to be a mere political strategy to broaden his operational base. Then, the failure to materialize the dream of Greater Mizoram induced the disillusioned Kukis of both Myanmar and India to explore a strategy for ensuring their racial survival that gave birth to the philosophy of Zale’n gam or an independent Kuki Nation. Parallel with this development, another ethnic mobilization in the form of Zo-reunification movement for a unified and independent Zogam of the Zo people has also emerged. The visualized Zale’n gam or Zogam consists of all the Kuki-Chin-Zomi ethnic groups scattering in the three countries of India, Myanmar and Bangladesh.

Now-a-days, various ethnic armed-outfits have been proliferating within the Kuki-Chin-Zomi ethnic movements characterized by intra-ethnic group conflict demanding their autonomous or independent homeland. But the Kuki-Chin-Zomi ethnic group’s conflict resulted in bloody factional feud. This can be ascribed to the uneven formation of the middle-class due to uneven responses to the process of modernization in all its aspects rather than mere leadership crisis, electoral politics or external influences. The expansion of the spheres of influences by the Kuki elites came into clash with that of the Naga elites and the Meitei elites who also have been pursuing the same line of action. This resulted into the Naga-Kuki clash of the 1990s and armed confrontation between the Kuki and Meitei insurgent organizations from time to time.

The Kuki narratives: Quest for a homeland

The movement for Kuki homeland initiated by the Kuki elites with the objective to carve out their exclusive spheres of influence necessitated to contrive certain ideological strategies for justifying their action.

a) The Kuki nation had already existed even before the arrival of the British and they had exercised sovereign authority over their land.

b) The Kuki nation was arbitrarily divided and placed in India, Myanmar and Bangladesh.

c) The Kukis had fiercely resisted the British colonial expansion that resulted in the Kuki War of Independence of 1917-1919 and 1943-1945.

d) The Meitei nation-State had been already conquered by the British in 1891 while the Kukis were subjugated only after the Kuki rebellion.

e) The Kukis were never ruled over by the Meiteis. On the contrary, the Kukis had extended military assistance to the Meitei kings.

f) Zale’n gam has been co-existing side by side with Kangleipak without affecting each other’s sovereignty. Therefore, Kangleipak does not have the right to claim any part of Zale’n gam.

g) The hill districts of Manipur are neither exclusively inhabited nor dominated by the Nagas.

h) That the categorization of the so called old Kukis like the Chothes, Chirus and Anals etc. into the Naga fold defies all logics of history, culture, language and ethnicity as they are more related to the new Kukis such as the Thadous and the Vaipheis.

i) That the Nagas have perpetrated heinous atrocities against the Kukis in violation of Human Rights.

j) That the Meiteis have exploited the Kukis in various ways in the past and in the present.

k) That the creation of an autonomous independent homeland exclusively for the Kukis is a prerogative historical right of the Kuki ethnic community.

Today, we witness proliferation of armed outfits among the Kuki-Chin-Zomi groups resulting into the inter-ethnic group conflict with the Nagas and internecine warfare within-the groups while simultaneously posing serious challenge to the unity and integrity of Manipur. Because, movement for Zale’n gam or Zogam or their ethnic philosophies have ideologically as well as geo-politically challenged the raison d’ etre of the historical existence of Manipur as a political entity in the same manner as the movement for Nagalim has done.

The Meitei narratives: Reconstructing a fragmented nationhood

The dominant elites of the Meiteis who had political edge over the tribal elites are today confronted with the dual challenges of Naga irredentism and Kuki resurgence. The newly emerged middle class elites of the Meiteis exercised monopoly in the power structure of the State resulting in the peripheralisation of the tribal elites from the Manipur mainstream. In fact, the development of ethnic insularity and political exclusivism among the tribals of the surrounding hills, which manifested in the Naga Integration Movement and Kuki demand for a homeland are reactions to the expansion of the Meitei elite groups in the spheres of administration, geo-politics, economy education, culture etc.

Now, in order to protect their spheres of influence and maintain the status quo, the Meitei elites harp upon the ideology of Manipuri Nationhood based on the historical sanctity of the Territorial Integrity and democratic value of ethnic pluralism based on peaceful co-existence.

a) Manipur, which comprised of both the valley and the hills, was an Independent Princely State for about two millennia.

b) Manipur was annexed into the dominion of India against the wishes of the people and that the Merger Agreement of 1949 is null and void as per the provisions of international laws and the Manipur State Constitution Act 1947.

c) Manipur has a definite historical international boundary at the time of its integration with India and the legal sanctity of its political boundary was upheld by various international treaties besides being recognized by United Kingdom and other powers. Therefore India cannot alter the boundary of Manipur and the Article 3 of the Indian Constitution cannot be applied to Manipur.

d) The territorial boundary of Manipur cannot be altered by virtue of universal principle of international law i.e. UTI Possidetis Juris which states that whatever the circumstances the right to self-determination must not involve changes to existing frontiers at the time of independence except where states concerned agree otherwise.

e) The demographic patterns of Manipur demonstrate that the hill districts of Manipur are inhabited by various tribes, Nepalese and several other communities. Since time immemorial, these tribes along with the Meiteis have had cultural, social and economic bonds. All kinds of tribes are also residing in the valley of Manipur harmoniously. Besides, it may be noted that the lingua-franca among these tribes is the Manipuri language.

f) No hill district is exclusively inhabited by a particular tribe. And the concept of “Naga-dominated areas” is a farce as the Kukis who are settled extensively in the hills have captured 11 Assembly Constituencies against 9 by the Nagas in the 7th Assembly Election (2000). So far, the Kukis have returned 4 times from the outer Manipur Parliamentary constituency whereas the Nagas 6 times.

g) The Manipur State Assembly has unanimously resolved to protect the present boundaries of the State on four occasions on the floor of the house in 1995, 1997, 1998 and 2001 respectively.

h) The people of Manipur have passed historic resolutions on 4th August 1997 and 28th September 2000 to protect the Unity and Territorial Integrity of Manipur. Besides, the Manipur People’s Uprising of 18th June 2001 stands as the living testimony to preserve the territorial status quo of Manipur.

i) The economic ties between the hills and the valley people are an inseparable one. Any disturbance to this economic compulsion would certainly lead into a grave economic crisis in the State where both the people from the hills and valley would suffer.

j) In the first democratic Government of Manipur formed in 1948 two tribal leaders viz; Major R. Khathing and Mr. Teba Kilong were appointed Ministers apart from making Mr T.C. Tiangkham, the Speaker.

k) The so-called Naga tribes of Manipur were never a signatory to the memorandum submitted by the Naga Club to the visiting Simon Commission in 1929.

l) That the Naga-Akbar Hydari Accord, 1947 between the then Governor of Assam Hydari and representative of Western Angamis, Eastern Angamis, Kukis, Kacha Nagas, Rengmas, Semas, Lothas, Aos, Sangtams and Changs had no jurisdiction over Manipur as Manipur then was an independent princely State.

m) No Naga tribes of Manipur had participated in the plebiscite of 1951 held in the Naga Hills under the leadership of Phizo. Rather the Nagas of Manipur have been participating in the democratic process very successfully and quite imminently since the first Indian Election of 1952.

n) That the 16-Point Agreement (which was never agreed upon in its entirety and which has been disowned by the NSCN and the Naga Hoho) between the Government of India and the Naga People’s Convention in 1960, and the 1964 ceasefire between the GOI and the NNC are null and void as far as Manipur is concerned as the people of Manipur were never consulted in the process.

o) That the hills people and the valley people are racially of common origin and they are not “two different people”. As such they are destined to co-exist together peacefully as “One People.”

These are the ideological ingredients of the mainstream ethno-political discourse of the Meiteis. Such well articulated agenda for the territorial integrity has been systematically propagated by the dominant elite groups of the Meitei community. This is nothing but a strategy of the Meitei middle-class elites to protect their spheres of influence by preserving the geo-ethno-political status quo.

Concluding Remark:

Such diametrically contradictory ideologies are being advanced by the elites of the respective ethnic groups resulting in a cross cutting conflict situation in Manipur, which renders its historical existence at stake. Considering the stances adopted by each of the competing elite groups, it is unlikely that a commonly acceptable solution could be brought about so easily in the near future. However the resolution of the existing conflict will to a large extent depend upon the accommodative capacity of the Indian Federal Polity. And the challenge before the Indian State today is whether India can evolve itself into a Multi-Ethnic Nation-State or not and only time will tell about the shape of things to come.

Here lies the responsibility of the intellectual community to explore various strategies to resolve the conflict situation prevailing in the North East in general and Manipur in particular. It is high time on the part of the Scholars, Researchers, Thinkers, Writers, Academicians, Social Activists etc. to free themselves from the shackles of the dominant elites by shedding narrow ‘isms’.

The intellectuals should cease to serve the reactionary elites of this parasitic regime and rather endeavor to create a free and fearless academic atmosphere where intellectual freedom shall be secured to all the investigating minds. Let us also strive our best to initiate an alternative discourse by heralding a new era of scientific research based on value-free objective analysis of empirical facts and events.

Finally, I would like to remind that social phenomenon occurs due to the operation of specific social laws and the task of discovering such social laws and engineering the process of social change for human welfare in the light of that laws lies with the intellectuals. This is a case of theory building and a challenge before us.

Intellectuals of the North -East, Unite!

(Courtesy: The Sangai Express)